DECEMBER 4, 2009 SUPREME COURT RULING IN THE INTESTATE CASE OF HERMOGENES RODRIGUEZ CITED CASE IN REMEDIAL LAW

Special Proceedings No. IR-1110 Reinstated by Supreme Court G.R. No.182645 December 4, 2009 now a Jurisprudence(SCRA Vol.607p.770-777) Citation in Remedial Law

(Refer to http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/december-2009-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-remedial-law/)

Appeal on the Settlement of Estate 

      "In special proceedings, such as the instant proceeding for settlement of estate, the period of appeal from any decision or final order rendered therein is 30 days, a notice of appeal and a record on appeal being required. . . . The appeal period may only be interrupted by the filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration. Once the appeal period expires without an appeal being perfected, the decision or order becomes final, thus: xxx xxx xxx In the case under consideration, it was on 13 August 1999 that the RTC issued an Amended Decision. On 12 October 1999, Jaime Robles erroneously filed a notice of appeal instead of filing a record on appeal. The RTC, in an order dated 22 November 1999, denied this for his failure to file a record on appeal as required by the Rules of Court. Petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of the rule; hence, the 13 August 1999 Amended Decision of the RTC lapsed into finality. It was therefore an error for the Court of Appeals to entertain the case knowing that Jaime Robles’ appeal was not perfected and had lapsed into finality." 
      In the matter of the Heirship [Intestate Estates] of the late Hermogenes Rodriguez, et al., Rene B. Pascual vs. Jaime M. Robles,G.R. No. 182645, December 4, 2009.

Perfection of Appeal 

      "This Court has invariably ruled that perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional.  The failure to perfect an appeal as required by the rules has the effect of defeating the right to appeal of a party and precluding the appellate court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case.  The right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law.  The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirement of the rules.  Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost. The reason for rules of this nature is because the dispatch of business by courts would be impossible, and intolerable delays would result, without rules governing practice. Public policy and sound practice demand that judgments of courts should become final and irrevocable at some definite date fixed by law. Such rules are a necessary incident to the proper, efficient and orderly discharge of judicial functions.  Thus, we have held that the failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed reglementary period is not a mere technicality, but jurisdictional. Just as a losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within the prescribed period, so does the winner also have the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision. Failure to meet the requirements of an appeal deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to entertain any appeal. There are exceptions to this rule, unfortunately respondents did not present any circumstances that would justify the relaxation of said rule." 

      In the matter of the Heirship [Intestate Estates] of the late Hermogenes Rodriguez, et al., Rene B. Pascual vs. Jaime M. Robles, G.R. No. 182645, December 4, 2009.

(Both citations in Remedial Law were published by Lexoterica Blawg - rbg54).

 

LOOMING SCENARIO FOR REFUSAL TO EXECUTE A FINAL & EXECUTORY JUDGMENT...

A Cited Case for Gross Ignorance of the Law

ON A MAGISTRATE / JUDGE WHO REFUSES TO EXECUTE FINAL JUDGMENT:

       "Complainant filed a case against Judge Patricio accusing him of gross ignorance of the law, manifest bias and partiality for refusing to execute a judgment which was already final and executory. The rule is that once a judgment attains finality, it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. Thus, the Supreme Court held that Judge (Patricio)  demonstrated ignorance of such rule by repeatedly refusing to execute the final and executory judgment (of conviction against the accused.) 

     The rules on execution are comprehensive enough for a judge not to know how to apply them or to be confused by any auxiliary incidents. The issuance of a writ of execution for a final and executory judgment is ministerial. In other words, a judge is not given the discretion whether or not to implement the judgment. He is to effect execution without delay and supervise implementation strictly in accordance with the judgment. Judge (Patricio’s) acts unmistakably exhibit gross ignorance of the law." 

Jesus D. Carbajosa v. Judge Hannibal R. Patricio, Presiding Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, President Roxas, Capiz, A.M. No. MTJ-13-1834, October 2, 2013.

(Credits to LEXOTERICA BLAWG on the information - rbg54)

RTC ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE ISSUES ORDER EXPUNGING NO. IR-1110 TO COMPLY WITH ERRONEOUS CA DECISION G.R. SP57417 WHICH HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE RTC SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE, BUT REVERSED AND NULLIFIED BY THE SUPREME COURT G.R. No.182645 DECEMBER 4, 2009, REINSTATING AMENDED DECISION

       On February 14, 2007, Judge Lore V. Bagalacsa, on the strength of Supreme Administrative Circular 5-98 as ordered and endorsed by then Pairing Judge Alfredo Agawa, issued an Order in the case she decided entitled "Special Proceedings No. IR-1110", the dispositive portion of the Order which states:

        

        xxx"As stated by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases, once a judgment attains finality it thereby becomes IMMUTABLE and UNALTERABLE.  The Court(RTC), in the absence of any supervening events, cannot grant the relief prayed for by the Solicitor General or any of the oppositors in this case, as to do so will undeniably modify and alter the AMENDED DECISION which has long become FINAL and EXECUTORY.  Moreover, the Solicitor General's standing in Court has been passed upon by this Court(RTC) in the AMENDED DECISION where he was declared to be not a real party in the proceedings, with more reason that the Solicitor General has no personality to continuously and repeatedly file various motions, comments, objections or opposition.

   

         It bears stressing that the AMENDED DECISION in this case (Special Proceedings No. IR-1110) already became FINAL and EXECUTORY several years ago.  Once a judgment becomes final and executory it can no longer be disturbed except only for the correction of clerical errors, or where supervening events render its execution impossible or unjust(Sampaguita Garments Corporation v. NLRC, 233 SCRA 260).  The Court(RTC) will no longer pass upon the other arguments raised by the Solicitor General in view of the above pronouncements.

        WHEREFORE, the motions and comments filed by the Solicitor General are DENIED for lack of merit.

        SO ORDERED." 

      On February 21, 2007, barely three days upon assumption as Acting Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 34, Iriga City, the Hon. Judge Lelu Contreras issued an Order motu proprio, expunging the entire THIRTY EIGHT (38) VOLUMES of records of Special Proceedings No. IR-1110 on the basis of the April 16, 2002 Decision of the Court of Appeals CA G.R. No. SP57417, an ERRONEOUS ruling which had no jurisdiction at all over the Amended Decision of this Hon. Court.  The Order of Judge Lelu Contreras contravened, reversed and vacated this Honorable Court’s Amended Decision, Certificate of Finality, and the February 14, 2007 Order, all issued by a co-equal magistrate who decided this case.  Worse, the said February 21, 2007 Order of the Hon. Judge Contreras had, in effect, grossly ignored the two (2) Supreme Court Resolutions with Entries of Judgments in SC G.R. No.140271 and SC G.R. No.142477 dated February 22, 2000 and September 5, 2000 respectively, the said Order being against the established principle of the hierarchy of Courts under Article VIII, Section 5, paragraph (2) sub-paragraph (c) and (e) of the Constitution, which declares:

“The SUPREME COURT shall have the following powers:
xxx
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:

xxx
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue;

    xxx
     (e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.”

        On December 4, 2009, the Supreme Court, in a PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION and CERTIORARI in SC-G.R. No. 182645, promulgated a DECISION based on the merits of the case, the dispositive portion of which specifically states:

          

        “WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED.  The 16 April 2002 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 57417 and the February 27, 2007 (should be February 21, 2007) Order of the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City, Branch 34 are hereby NULLIFIED.  The 13 August 1999 Amended Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City in SP No. IR-1110 is hereby REINSTATED.(607 SCRA p.770-777, December 4, 2009)

        On June 22, 2011, the Supreme Court, before dismissing the case of SC petitioner Rene Pascual on the same case, discussed separately the RTC Iriga City AMENDED DECISION, and declared:

  "THE ONLY EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE ON THE IMMUTABILITY OF FINAL JUDGMENTS are: (1) CLERICAL ERRORS, (2)THE SO-CALLED NUNC PRO TUNC ENTRIES WHICH CAUSE NO PREJUDICE TO ANY PARTY, and (3)VOID JUDGMENTS.xxx"  

      UNLIKE THE AUGUST 13, 1999 AMENDED DECISION OF THE RTC IRIGA CITY, BRANCH 34, (which was found by the CA to be a complete nullity), THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT THE INSTANT CASE (Special Proceedings No. IR-1110) FALLS UNDER ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS ENUMERATED ABOVE." 

       Worthy also to note is the last paragraph before the dismissal of the Certiorari case of Rene Pascual, with the Supreme Court ruling that it is now "with prejudice" for Rene Pascual, Jaime Robles, the OSG, or any other party to bring to petition for appeal and question the finality and immutability of the Amended Decision, (as opposed to the CA Decision being a void judgment and was nullified together with the February 21, 2007 Order of Judge Lelu Contreras), the Supreme Court stating firmly:

  "CONSIDERING THE FOREGOING (after discussing the immutability of the AMENDED DECISION), THE COURT NO LONGER FINDS IT NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES RAISED BY PETITIONER." 


          THERE IS NO OTHER RECOURSE FOR THE HONORABLE MAGISTRATE OF THE RTC BRANCH 34 OF IRIGA CITY BUT TO IMPLEMENT THE LONG DELAYED EXECUTION OF THE AMENDED DECISION. 

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION FOR TWO LAWS/DECISIONS PASSED/PROMULGATED ON THE SAME ISSUE/SUBJECT MATTER

 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION ON THE DECEMBER 4, 2009 AND JUNE 22, 2011 SUPREME COURT DECISIONS OF G.R. No.182645 - IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE HERMOGENES RODRIGUEZ vs. JAIME ROBLES:

          The June 22, 2011 Supreme Court Decision of SC-G.R. No. 182645 issued by the Special Third Division, in dismissing the petition for Certiorari filed by Supreme Court petitioner Rene Pascual, a non-party to the original case in RTC Branch 34, Iriga City, did not affect at all the finality and Immutability of the AMENDED DECISION dated August 13, 1999 of Special Proceedings in IR-1110.  Anent this, the Supreme Court December 4, 2009 Decision of the same case, issued by the former Regular Third Division and which was penned by now retired Hon. Justice Minita Chico-Nazario, and which was set aside by the December 15, 2010 Resolution of the Special Third Division, but the aforesaid late appeal PARTLY GRANTED and only meant to give SC Respondent Jaime Robles a chance to enter his plea and speak out as an indispensible party, but the aforesaid June 22, 2011 SC Decision NEVER PRONOUNCED AND RULED AGAINST the Iriga City AMENDED DECISION nor the December 4, 2009 SC DECISION, the latter already attaining FINALITY and became part of jurisprudence as borne by the annotated records in SCRA Vol. 607, p.770-777, and the same was never pronounced as having been reversed, nullified or vacated by the June 22, 2011 SC Special Third Division Decision.  It is constitutionally illegal for a (Special) DIVISION of the SUPREME COURT to nullify, reverse or vacate a Decision of another (Regular) DIVISION of the SUPREME COURT when the said Decision of the latter Division had already lapsed into finality; this was specified by the Constitutional provisions of our basic law but can only be done through an EN BANC ruling by the SUPREME COURT voting as one body by all fifteen (15) members of the Highest Magistrate.  The Constitutional provision in Article VIII, Section 4, last portion of paragraph 3 authoritatively directs the entire Judiciary Department of the country that in the presence of conflicting rulings, only an EN BANC decision by the highest Court shall have the final say, stating inter alia-

          “xxx Provided: THAT NO DOCTRINE OR PRINCIPLE OF LAW  LAID DOWN BY THE COURT IN A DECISION RENDERED EN BANC OR IN DIVISION MAY BE MODIFIED OR REVERSED EXCEPT BY THE COURT (SUPREME COURT) SITTING EN BANC. xxx.” 

        The Supreme Court, in the aforesaid case SC-G.R. No. 182645, issued the following rulings in two Decisions, as follows:

I. THE DECEMBER 4, 2009 SC DECISION (SCRA 607, p.770-777)

GRANTED THE PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION BEING MERITORIOUS, THE SUPREME COURT DISPOSITIVELY RULING IN REGARD TO THE CA RESOLUTION/DECISION AND, THE RTC AMENDED DECISION:

1) NULLIFIED the COURT OF APPEALS DECISION G.R. SP No. 57417 dated April 16, 2002, which had previously declared the RTC Branch 34 Iriga City AMENDED DECISION  a patent nullity. Relative to the CA Resolution nullification, the Supreme Court also NULLIFIED the February 21, 2007 RTC Iriga City Order which continued to implement the void CA Resolution; and

2) REINSTATED the RTC Iriga City AMENDED DECISION dated August 13, 1999 of aforesaid Special Proceedings No. IR-1110, the said RTC Decision having COMMITTED NO ERRORS. 

II. THE JUNE 22, 2011 SC DECISION

THE SUPREME COURT DISPOSITIVELY DISCUSSED TWO SEPARATE RULINGS:

1) Declared "IMMUTABLE" the LONG DECLARED FINAL & EXECUTORY RTC Branch 34 Iriga City AMENDED DECISION, the Supreme Court categorically discussed the following:

  xxx"The ONLY EXEMPTIONS TO THE RULE OF IMMUTABILITY OF FINAL JUDGMENTS ARE: (1)THE CORRECTION OF CLERICAL ERRORS, (2)THE SO CALLED NUNC-PRO-TUNC ENTRIES WHICH CAUSE NO PREJUDICE TO ANY PARTY, AND (3)VOID JUDGMENTS.

     UNLIKE THE AMENDED DECISION, (which was found by the CA to be a complete nullity), THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT THE INSTANT CASE (Special Proceedings No. IR-1110) FALLS UNDER ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS ENUMERATED ABOVE."

2) Dismissed the Petition for Certiorari of Rene Pascual ON A TECHNICALITY, since RENE PASCUAL was NOT AN ORIGINAL PARTY TO THE RTC Iriga City SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE. 

       
   By way of STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, the two SUPREME COURT DECISIONS of December 4, 2009 and June 22, 2011, of SC G.R. No. 182645, not contradictory in their pronouncements, are both given equal weight and importance, and both rulings are applied by the Supreme Court without conflict.  On both Supreme Court Decisions, the RTC Branch 34 Iriga City AMENDED DECISION was upheld when it was REINSTATED, and, being a final and executory judgment a long time ago, having committed no errors, and was declared IMMUTABLE; as against the CA Resolution dated 16 April 2002 in CA G.R. SP No.57417, which CAN NEVER BECOME IMMUTABLE and was categorized as a VOID JUDGMENT, the said CA ruling NULLIFIED by the Supreme Court in the December 4, 2009 Decision of SC-G.R. No. 182645.

          The Supreme Court in the Decision dated December 4, 2009 and  then in the Decision dated June 22, 2011 in SC-G.R. No. 182645 have now both become final and executory, and the Supreme Court issued an Entry of Judgment on September 12, 2011 for the said case, and was duly transmitted by registered mail, as per records of the Supreme Court Judgment Division, to the Court of Appeals and RTC Branch 34 of Iriga City on December 9, 2011.

(As per research, Statutory Construction is a three(3) unit subject, in law schools.  This is usually the study and analysis of old and new decisions or laws passed covering the same issues or subject. - Credit to AE on his explanation on this - rbg54.)   

SUPREME COURT No. 182645 JUNE 22, 2011 DECLARES RTC IRIGA CITY SPEC. PROC. No. IR-1110 AMENDED DECISION IMMUTABLE

           

          On December 15, 2010, acting on a very late appeal by Jaime Robles to the Supreme Court in the case G.R. No. 182645 filed by Estate assignee/vendee Rene Pascual, a Resolution was penned by the Honorable Supreme Court Justice Diosdado Peralta of the Supreme Court Special Third Division, which PARTLY granted the appeal of Jaime Robles and temporarily set aside the December 4, 2009 Decision of the Supreme Court Regular Third Division.

          Thereafter, on June 22, 2011, a Decision, penned by the Hon. Supreme Court Justice Diosdado Peralta of the Special Third Division of the same case G.R. No. 182645, dispositively discussed the personality of Rene Pascual in filing the petition for Certiorari, and this time, ruled to dismiss the Pascual SC petition for Certiorari.  But the most important part of this Supreme Court Decision favoring the Estate was the pronouncement and citation concerning the “immutability of finality of judgments”on page 8 of the June 22, 2011 Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. 182645, which reads:

     
“xxx Hence, by the time herein petitioner filed the instant petition on the sole basis that he acquired an interest in a portion of the disputed case, the assailed CA Decision had long become final and executory.

In Mocorro, Jr. v. Ramirez, this Court reiterated the long-standing rule governing finality of judgments, to wit:

   
   A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. This quality of immutability precludes the modification of a final judgment, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law.  And this postulate holds true whether the modification is made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court in the land. The orderly administration of justice requires that, at the risk of occasional errors, the judgments/resolutions of a court must reach a point of finality set by the law.  The noble purpose is to write finis to dispute once and for all. This is a fundamental principle in our justice system, without which there would be no end to litigations.

xxx

The only exceptions to the rule on the immutability of final judgments are (1) the correction of clerical errors, (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, and (3) void judgments.

         

Unlike the August 13, 1999 Amended Decision of the RTC, Iriga City, Branch 34, (which was found by the CA to be a complete nullity), there is no showing that the instant case falls under any of the exceptions enumerated above. 
(sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/182645.htm )

EXPLANATION:

      The August 13, 1999 AMENDED DECISION of the RTC Branch 34, Iriga City in Special Proceedings No. IR-1110 was the one being referred to by the June 22, 2011 Supreme Court Decision as “the instant case”, and was the one specifically described as the IMMUTABLE JUDGMENT, for the said instant case DOES NOT SHOW that the aforesaid RTC Decision THAT IT FELL INTO ANY OF THE THREE CATEGORIES EXEMPTED FROM IMMUTABILITY. 

    Unlike the RTC Amended Decision, the assailed Court of Appeals Resolution/Decision of April 16, 2002 in CA-G.R. No. SP 57417, although lapsing also into finality, the CA Decision was an ERRONEOUS RULING, and had NO JURISDICTION over the Iriga City RTC Branch 34 Special Proceedings No. IR-1110 case at all, the Jaime Robles petition for appeal being imperfect for Robles' failure to file a Record on Appeal, MANDATORY and JURISDICTIONAL in all Special Proceedings cases.  For this the CA Decision fell on the third category of being a VOID JUDGMENT and whose finality was exempted from becoming immutable.  

      The said Court of Appeals Resolution/Decision, together with the Order dated February 21, 2007 by the Iriga City RTC Branch 34 which implemented the said Court of Appeals Decision were both NULLIFIED by the Supreme Court December 4, 2009 Decision of the same case (SC-G.R. No. 182645), and this was clearly described and cited by the Ponente himself, the Hon. Supreme Court Justice Peralta in the case “Ong vs. PDIC”.  Although the CA Decision may have lapsed into finality, like the August 13, 1999 Amended Decision of the Iriga City RTC Branch 34, the CA Decision CANNOT BECOME IMMUTABLE, UNLIKE the finality of the Amended Decision of RTC Iriga City, which had been declared immutable, having COMMITTED NO ERRORS. 

          The June 22, 2011 Supreme Court Decision, in dismissing the petition for Certiorari filed by Supreme Court petitioner Rene Pascual, a non-party to the original case in RTC Iriga City, did not affect at all the Amended Decision of Special Proceedings in IR-1110.  Anent this, the Supreme Court December 4, 2009 Decision of the same case (SC-G.R. No. 182645), which was set aside by the December 15, 2010 Resolution, was only meant to give SC Respondent Jaime Robles a chance to enter his plea and speak out as an indispensible party, but the aforesaid June 22, 2011 SC Decision never ruled against the Iriga City Amended Decision nor the December 4, 2009 SC Decision for the latter was never pronounced as having been reversed, nullified or vacated by the June 22, 2011 SC Special Third Division Decision, for it is constitutionally illegal for a Supreme Court Division to nullify, reverse or vacate another Supreme Court Division Decision which had already become final, but could only be done through an EN BANC ruling. 

         
        

          It is also noteworthy to share the parting statement of the June 22, 2011 Supreme Court Decision of SC-G.R. No. 182645, before the said ruling dismissed the petition for Certiorari of Rene Pascual:

xxx

     “Considering the foregoing, the Court finds it no longer necessary to address the issues raised by petitioner.”

Xxx

          The Supreme Court pointed out that with the Amended Decision of RTC Branch 34 of Iriga City, having lapsed into finality and becoming IMMUTABLE a long time ago, and, the CA Resolution/Decision being a void judgment from the very start, it was not necessary anymore for the Highest Court to address the issues raised by SC petitioner Rene Pascual in questioning the RTC RULING, for the Highest Court confirmed that the said Amended Decision had already attained RES JUDICATA status a long time ago (Bachrach vs. CA, 357Phil. 483, 491-1998), and it is now “with prejudice” for Pascual or for any other party to file any future case to challenge the same since the “instant case” was already declared immutable by the Highest Court of the land.

JURISPRUDENCE CITING RODRIGUEZ INTESTATE CASE GR#182645 Dec.4/2009

      On August 8, 2010, knowing fully well that the aforesaid Supreme Court Decision of December 4, 2009 of G.R. No. 182645 had lapsed into finality and that the same had already become part of law and jurisprudence, the Hon. Supreme Court Justice Diosdado Peralta, as Ponente of another Supreme Court case, promulgated a Decision in SC G.R. No. 175116: “Jerry Ong vs. PDIC”, in which he used as part of his jurisprudence a specific cited portion of the aforesaid December 4, 2009 Supreme Court Decision of the Hermogenes Rodriguez intestate case, the citation on page 10 of aforesaid SC Decision which states:

     “Thus, WE FIND NO ERROR COMMITTED by the CA when it sustained the RTC’s dismissal of petitioner’s appeal for failure to comply with the rules.

     

      In the Matter of the Heirship (Intestate Estate) of the late Hermogenes Rodriguez, et. al. vs. Jaime Robles, WE NULLIFIED THE C.A. DECISION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION in taking cognizance of an appeal from the RTC DECISION WHICH HAD ALREADY LAPSED INTO FINALITY for failure of the party to file a record on appeal within the reglamentary period, and said:

           

This Court has invariably ruled that perfection of appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by law IS NOT ONLY MANDATORY BUT JURISDICTIONAL.  The failure to perfect an appeal as required by the rules has the effect of defeating the right of the party and precluding the appellate court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case.  The right of appeal is NOT A NATURAL RIGHT NOR A PART OF DUE PROCESS; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law.  The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirement of the rules.  Failing to do so, the right of appeal is lost.  The reason for the rules of this nature is because the dispatch of business by courts would be impossible, and intolerable delays will result, without rules governing practice.  Public policy and sound practice demand that JUDGMENTS OF COURTS SHOULD BECOME FINAL AND IRREVOCABLE AT SOME TIME DEFINITE DATE FIXED BY LAW.  Such rules are incident to the proper, efficient and orderly discharge of judicial functions.  Thus, we have held that the failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed reglementary period is NOT A MERE TECHNICALITY, BUT JURISDICTIONAL.  Just as the losing party has the privilege to file an appeal WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD, so does the winner also have the CORRELATIVE RIGHT TO ENJOY THE FINALITY OF THE DECISION.  Failure to meet the requirements of an appeal deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to entertain an appeal.  There are exceptions to the rule, unfortunately respondents did not present any circumstances that would justify the relaxation of the said rule.”

(SCRA 607, p.770-777, December 4, 2009)